DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GAMBLING AND TRADING.

It has been remarked that all games or sports are imitations either of war or commerce. The imitations of war are sufficiently obvious; some, such as the combats of the gladiators in ancient Rome, were exhibitions of actual fighting; others, such as the bull-fights of Spain, the elephant and tiger-fights of India, the cock-fights, dog-fights, badger-baits, &c. of England and other countries, are exhibitions of the combats of animals. In these cruel sports, the men or animals are made to fight for the amusement of the lookers-on, who sympathize in the exertions of skill, power, and courage which they behold. More frequently, however, the pleasure is derived from being, not a spectator, but an actor in the contest; as in all field-sports, such as hunting, shooting, and fishing; or in bloodless games, such as cricket, football, prisoners-base, chess, draughts, &c.; in which the gratification arises from a sense of the skill exercised, from the love of emulation, and the feeling of superiority. The games which appear to be imitations of mercantile dealings are, without exception, games of chance or gambling games, such as games with dice and cards, lotteries, raffles, &c. In games of this kind there is 294usually a stake to be played for, which is like the sum that a trader hopes to gain by an adventure or speculation; and either chance alone, or a mixture of chance and skill, determines the winner. In some games of cards the resemblance is still further increased by the players exchanging some of their cards, as in the well-known game of commerce.

But in noting the resemblance between trade and games of chance, it is also important to note their difference. At games of chance there is a certain stake made up by the contributions of the players; and when the game is over, whatever is gained by one player is lost by another. There can be no gain without a corresponding loss. In trade, however, this is far otherwise. Every voluntary exchange must necessarily be for the benefit of both parties. It would be an absurdity to suppose that both parties to an exchange are not gainers. No man exchanges merely for the sake of changing: for example, no man gives a shilling in order to get a shilling, or gives a copy of a book in order to get an identical copy of the same book. Still less does any one exchange in order to give away something which is more valuable to him than that which he gets in return. No man gives a horse worth £30 for a bushel of corn worth 10s. No man gives a cargo of cotton goods worth £500 for a pipe of wine worth £50.

Some of our readers may perhaps be inclined to exclaim that they need not to be informed of a maxim which is never formally stated, only because it is universally admitted; and may think that in telling them that neither party loses by an exchange, we adhere strictly to our character of not admitting news into our magazine. Nevertheless this axiom, however evident and undeniable, is impliedly rejected by many of those persons who consider free trade as injurious to the wealth of a country. For in whatever manner merchants are permitted to trade it is quite certain that they will never give more than they get—in other words, never voluntarily make a losing bargain. Sometimes indeed it happens that goods are voluntarily sold at a loss, but it is evident that no merchant will long continue to make exchanges by which he is a loser. Those persons, therefore, who maintain that if we trade freely with a foreign country our merchants will lose, unless that country trades freely with us, maintain that one of the parties to a voluntary exchange may be a loser. For as no considerable trade can be carried on by means of the precious metals by a country in which they are not produced, it is obvious that if we import a large quantity of goods from a foreign country, we must either give in exchange goods of less value to us than those which we part with, or that if they will not take our goods and do not want bullion, they must give us their goods for nothing. The latter supposition is, we fear, too favourable to ourselves to be very probable, or, as is commonly said, it is too good to be true; but at any rate it is as likely that foreigners will give us their goods for nothing, as that we will give foreigners our goods for nothing; which would be the case if it were true that a free trade, or any other trade, is a losing trade.